December 19, 2014, 04:07:32 AM

Author Topic: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?  (Read 10892 times)

TAF

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2012, 06:23:07 PM »
Quote
Based on the OP's comments, I would recommend the 5D3

That he had twice the budget he was actually talking about?  I reckon if he wanted to spend the money on a 5D3 he would be asking that question.

This is the one thing I HATE about this forum.   A lot of posters wanting folks to double their spend.  And this just isn't possible in the current climate for a lot of people.


You are absolutely correct.  My response was way too short and without detail to explain why I was making the recommendation I was.  At a minimum I should have added the qualifier "given the limitations discussed by the other posters above" as to why I was suggesting going a bit beyond his original plan (hardly double...$2K to $2.8K at present US advertised prices).

I suspect that the reason many posters on this board will recommend spending more than the questioner initially suggests is this...based on many years of experience (40+ in my case), one learns that it is frequently better to save up and spend what is necessary to have what you need (or more subjectively, what you actually might want) than to compromise and simply spend what you have.  Especially when the difference is not that great.

I will reiterate that regardless of the camera chosen, get the Zoom.  It's a superb solution to the audio problem, and performs far beyond what the manufacturer guarantees it will (esp. at the higher sample rates).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2012, 06:23:07 PM »

unadog

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2012, 07:44:44 PM »
I, too, would recommend the T4i.

It adds the touch screen with auto focus for video. It has face tracking focus, so if you set it up for an interview, it would automatically keep teh subjects face in focus if he/she moved forward or back whiel takinjg.

In my mind, that helps move it closer to the "camcorder" realm.

You can also get teh new 18-135 mm STM lens, which has silent autofocus for video.  It also "hunts"for focus differently than older lenses, in a much nocer way that looks better on video.

You can also do auto focus "focus pulls", by touching a new spot on the LCD where you want the focus to move.  This same auto focus technology with STM lenses will be implemented on the C100.

Thr T4i has teh same basic sensor as the 7D.

You might keep an eye out though,, it seems there is a camera missing between teh T4i and the 1D-C. Perhaps something like a 3D-C or a 7D-C yet to be announced? Although if Canon announces a 40 MP camera, that may push another video DSLR further out.

Good luck!
Michael

The auto focus for stills is also very good. 

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2012, 08:22:32 PM »
@TAF
Quote
hardly double...$2K to $2.8K at present US advertised prices

Here in the UK you are still looking at £2600 for the 5D3 vs £1600 for the 5D2.  A bigger percentage gap, and if you look at the equivalent in dollars, not a small gap at all.

Don't assume everybody has, or wants to spend the same amount of money as you.  Sometimes you don't need to, and sometimes you need to make do.




dave

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2012, 08:25:18 PM »
To paraphrase Paul13Walnut5, most devices are going to have a core use (something they are best at) but with many devices having additional capabilities it is tricky to make a decision. It sounds like you really need to think about what you want to focus on the most.

If it is video, there is no doubt IMO that there are better options than the 5D2 -- possibly the next (rumor only!)entry level Canon Full Frame, on the horizon - if you are set on full frame. The T4i is a great low cost suggestion, with a sensor that will hold up exceptionally well against most prosumer camcorders.

If you really want to shoot a lot of stills with a bit of video, the 5D2 could be very satisfying. I love my 5D2, because it is the best stills camera I have ever actually used.

If you want to shoot your cats chasing each other round the house you may as well throw the 5D2 out the window, or invest in some serious add-ons to make up for it's shortcomings.

I have found that the quality of my video has not improved dramatically based on which camera I actually use. I have multiple cameras but this is more about the right tool for the job rather than quality. The T2i stands up great.

My video improved most because of things I picked up over time like a decent tripod, slider, mics and editing software.

I am not saying that you necessarily need all of these, but something like a T4i would presumably leave some room in the budget (given that you are suggesting a 5d2) for a couple of add-ons that could improve your footage and final product no end.

These are just my suggestions and I hope mine and others are helping you.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 08:35:24 PM by dave »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9371
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2012, 10:25:20 PM »
God, real video cameras are SO MUCH expensive compared to a DSLR :<
The problem with a HDDSLR is that the body is about 10% of the total cost for professional video.  with a Camcorder, its closer to 60%

dave

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2012, 11:06:26 PM »
If you're doing any professional video I'd suggest getting a real video camera. I get frustrated with my attempts at non professional video on a DSLR. Poor focus control, poor live controls, poor viewing screen, poor audio control and input. If you're a poor indie filmmaker, or a Photog who wants occasional video it is nice, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Well you seem to forget that i also wanna shoot pictures.
Also, I don't really agree with you on certain points; tried 7D (latest firmware) + 5d2 (magic lantern 2.3 firmware) and i didn't notice any of those things you mention.

I also tried real video cameras such as Z7, it of course feels nice, but i always prefer the colors & the DOF on a DSLR.

The bottom line is that where conditions, type of footage required and ability to plan carefully are optimal it is going to be hard to replicate the sheer beauty of DSLR video footage on anything other than a really expensive camcorder.

The versatility and optimisation of a 'real' camcorder is simply not present on any DSLR (that I could afford).

Your post seems to imply that you think you can pull off the video that you require with a 5D2 and the accessories that you have. If that is the case, then it shoots great stills.

For me, if you ever want to shoot video of something fast moving the 5d2 is out. My focusing skills just aren't there.

So far, you have specified

1. a single device
2. to be used for stills and mostly interview video

So the relatively affordable options:

1. T4i - good compromise for video and stills, cash left for mics etc.
2. 7D - price has dropped, APS-C slightly safer for video depth of field, good build quality, focusing would be a challenge on anything moving during video.
3. 5D2 - best still images out of my options, most difficult to use for video (most likely to encounter a situation where it is simply not useable), great video quality under optimal conditions.
4. The best camcorder for the price that you want to pay that shoots good stills. My XF100 shoots rubbish stills, so I can't help you there.

At anything under $2000 you are not going to get, brilliant versatile video capabilities and top shelf still quality. And if you find it let me know. It still comes down to what will you do the most and what is most importnat that you get right.

From previous posts I am presuming you don't want to spend a bomb. What is the actual budget?

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2012, 03:46:09 AM »
The trick to shooting moving subjects on dslr is to either:

Always use MF.  I doubt the stm system is up to the job for professional / demanding use.

Set up so you are at right angles to movement rather than head on

If you must shoot head on then prefocus on a motivational point, let your subject come through the frame, drifting into sharp focus at the intended moment (corners are good, jumps are good, a particular framing say full height in frame etc)

Use a smaller aperture and / or wider angle to give you more latitude

If video is a primary use then consider dedicated video lenses, or at least mechanical lenses with hard focus ring stops such as samyangs or zeiss.

I dont attempt to track focus on my mf eng cameras and so wouldnt on my dslr.
Follow focus may be another solution but i'm personally not a fan, often choosing a dslr for its inconspicuous or portable form.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2012, 03:46:09 AM »

l1nkje

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2012, 04:57:53 AM »
Thanks for all those replies guys, i really appreciate it.

For what that matter, i don't really have a budget. I mean, I waited so long to have a decent camera but let's say i'm about 4K, 4.5K euros at the moment (and maybe even more since i'm working way too much these days ^^).
So yeah, today i'm more thinking about a glidecam/5d2/DXA-5DA and 2 lenses + 1 lapel microphone (if that's the right term)

I never used the autofocus while using 7D/5D2, i never trused it and always did it manually. Was hard at the beginning, but the result was way better at the end.

Editing is what i do, and i can really work/edit on the image on a 5d2; colors are pretty awesome.

Any more ideas? :P

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2012, 06:02:55 AM »
Cheaper body = more money for nice glass

F2.8 zoom combo great for video, sigma EX very good value, i.e. 70-200 f2.8 & 24-70 f2.8 for ff, 18-50 f2.8 for aps-c

Radio lav (sennheiser) and good rifle mic (rode ntg2 great value) + good headphones, senn hd-25 or hd-25-ii's

Sachtler Ace tripod (best performing ready to go solution for €€€)

Interfit super coolite softbox kit for beautiful interview set ups

Reflector for outdoors

Screw in glass nd filters.  Nd2 nd8 nd16.  Not faders.
Oh and a polariser.


syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2012, 06:07:57 AM »

So yeah, today i'm more thinking about a glidecam/5d2/DXA-5DA and 2 lenses + 1 lapel microphone (if that's the right term)



Why the glidecam? It isn't that they aren't useful, just that steadicam footage is fairly niche and not that commonly used. A decent tripod + rig would be the goto camera support for most situations. I'd also think about getting a shotgun mic (something like a rode ntg-2 or sennheiser me66) to go with the lav mic.

michaeleast

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2012, 07:22:02 AM »
I'd like to throw in another possibility that I don't think has been mentioned yet. The Canon 60D.  Ok it's older than the T4i/650D, but it has a better viewfinder, top LCD & larger raw buffer for photography.  Articulating screen like the T4i.  Uses standard LP-E6 batteries that are interchangeable with 7D and 5D Mark 2 & 3 if you ever want to upgrade.

If you install Magic Lantern it will give you focus peaking and zebras that while not as good as a dedicated video camera, work surprisingly well in most situations.  Magic Lantern also gives you the option to record the internal mic to one channel, and an external mic to the other.  Which can be pretty useful for interviews, etc.  You can't adjust analog gain levels independently per channel, only both at the same time, but the digital gain is adjustable on a per channel basis if needed. If your external mic has it's own gain controls this will probably not be an issue.

Magic Lantern hasn't been ported to the 650D, but hopefully will be in the future. You can't install Magic Lantern on the 7D, and it is unlikely that they will ever be able to port it to the 7D.  So in my opinion the 60D is the best budget DSLR  option.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 07:25:42 AM by michaeleast »

l1nkje

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2012, 07:32:16 AM »
Why the glidecam? It isn't that they aren't useful, just that steadicam footage is fairly niche and not that commonly used. A decent tripod + rig would be the goto camera support for most situations. I'd also think about getting a shotgun mic (something like a rode ntg-2 or sennheiser me66) to go with the lav mic.

Well, i deffo need a tripod obviously, but i'd like something to keep the cam steady so i can go with smooth shots ; it's not like i'm gonna carry my tripod and film at the same time (unless is really light!). Or a monopod maybe?

Also, i got the MKE-400 atm, so i guess i wouldn't get a shotgun mic at the moment.

What is a "Lav mic" ?

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2012, 08:23:51 AM »
Lavalier mic, alternative name for a tie clip type mic.

The Sennheiser MKE would be ok for ambient run and gun sound, certainly a step up from the front mic if you add the rycote windjammer, but its not a close interview mic.  You want an XLR mic with a balanced cable run to your camera.

I prefer rifle micing interviews, less issues with concealing mic, rustling of fabric or jangling of jewellery.  Can also be properly windproofed for outdoor use.  Windproofed lavs just look like a bee has landed on your subject.

I use a fig rig and a hague stabiliser.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2012, 08:23:51 AM »

leGreve

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
  • Full time photographer and film maker omnifilm.dk
    • View Profile
    • leGreve Photography
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2012, 08:27:58 AM »
We really really need to grow out of this DSLR fetich. Yes, it was amazing to see what was suddenly possible. But the fact remains that the DSLRs are CRAP for proper video work. I can pick out a music video or a commercial 8 times out of 10 if they have been shot with a DSLR... because it looks like what it is. Bad cheap production value.

No short DoF can compensate for what is being churned out........

That is the reason I took the jump and moved on. The FS100 was the first stop... now the F3 is starting to look nice for those corporate jobs and in time the Alexa and F65 will look even nicer on a rental basis.

DSLRs have become the general toy of hopetimists and it's getting freaking boring to look at. A oh god I'm already fearing all the BS slowmo films that will be pouring out of every corner in the world over the next year or so.

Spend money on the proper tool for the job you're doing. If I haven't blown my load on the FS100, I'd upgrade my photo side of the business to a proper Phase One camera as well. There is very noticeable difference between shooting with a camera like that or a DSLR.

To be honest... the most optimal thing would be to throw all my money in optics and lights. Those are eternal and won't degrade as fast Canons "new one every year with 5% tech increase" camera policy.

I know this is hard to take for blinded Canon fan boys, but after having been one myself for so many years, I've finally started to seeing the light, and it's not shining on Canon and their consumer mentality.
5D III -  Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 ~ 24-70 2.8L II ~ 70-200 2.8L II IS USM ~ 100 2.8L IS USM Macro ~ 16-35 2.8L II ~ Canon Extender 2x III

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2012, 08:34:51 AM »
@leGreve
Quote
Bad cheap production value.

Not the problem of the camera.  It's only a tool.  As are a lot of the folk who are using them.

How many crap films have been shot on panavision?

How many crap tv shows have been shot on digbeta?

I'm sure in time we'll see some dross from f65 users, with or without film school training and HMI lighting rigs.

DSLRs are a great tool at a great price, they are not the answer to every production scenario, but then I can't think of a camera that is.

It goes without saying that a production needs more than shallow Dof to be watchable, but it's also a very nice tool to have when applied properly.   

Don't blame the tools for the silly kids on vimeo.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2012, 08:34:51 AM »